GregP
Major
Hi Everyone,
Recently, a link was posted to Naval Aviation Combat Statistics for WWII. A lot has been written in here about the numbers, but they are the best numbers we have for the USA. and the USA is the only country that did a study of aerial combat claims after WWII was over. For me, Study 85 gives the best USAAF numbers (even though the file cannot be read by a computer) and the Navy document above is also the best for those services.
It is generally accepted that the F6F Hellcat shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft in combat while losing 270 to enemy aircraft, for a combat kill ratio of 19+:1. Most people don't really look at the document, but we lost another 553 Hellcats to AAA, 340 to operational combat losses (ran out of fuel, engine failure, etc), 413 on ship or ground not while in combat, and 885 on other flights (such as repositioning, ferry flights, maintenance test flights, etc.). Total losses in combat were 1,163. Total non-combat losses were 1,298.
Interestingly, in that same document, go look at Table 28. It gives a breakout of the main fighter versus the Japanese by individual aircraft type.
For instance, the Hellcat against the A6M Zeke / Hamp shot down 1,000 and lost 75 (ratio is 13.3 : 1). The F4U/FG Corsair against the same opponent is 327 kills versus 27 losses (ratio is 8.8 : 1). It is broken out by a lot of aircraft (though they DO group the SB2C and TBM together). Overall, the Hellcat against the Japanese shot down 3,518 against 160 losses to enemy aircraft (ratio is 22 : 1) while the Corsair killed 1,042 against 49 losses (ratio is 21.3 : 1). So, overall, they are just about even in combat versus Japanese aircraft.
Again overall, the Hellcat had 2,461 total losses (combat and non-combat) in 66,530 sorties while the Corsair had 1,624 losses in 64,051 sorties. Hellcat loss per sortie is 1.75% and Corsair loss per sorties is 1.2% if all losses are looked at. To me, it says a LOT more about what the individual aircraft assignment were than about anything else. Any way you cut it, their overall loss ratio is very close to even and the overall enemy aircraft combat kill ratio favors the Hellcat by about 50% (19 : 1 versus 11 : 1). I put that down to opportunity. It looks to me like the main combats were fought mostly with Hellcat and the Marines flew the Corsairs in mostly mop-up assignments after the main combat assault was done, and the Marines DID get main assault assignments, but there was a lot of ground attack against enemy troops in there that Hellcats saw a lot less of.
Not really making a statement as much as calling attention to Table 28. Table 29 shows the F4U was used something like 25 times more against targets than for combat CAP, so it WOULD get less chances against enemy planes.
These tables and more are worth looking at and should generate a LOT of discussion. What do you guys think?
Recently, a link was posted to Naval Aviation Combat Statistics for WWII. A lot has been written in here about the numbers, but they are the best numbers we have for the USA. and the USA is the only country that did a study of aerial combat claims after WWII was over. For me, Study 85 gives the best USAAF numbers (even though the file cannot be read by a computer) and the Navy document above is also the best for those services.
It is generally accepted that the F6F Hellcat shot down 5,163 enemy aircraft in combat while losing 270 to enemy aircraft, for a combat kill ratio of 19+:1. Most people don't really look at the document, but we lost another 553 Hellcats to AAA, 340 to operational combat losses (ran out of fuel, engine failure, etc), 413 on ship or ground not while in combat, and 885 on other flights (such as repositioning, ferry flights, maintenance test flights, etc.). Total losses in combat were 1,163. Total non-combat losses were 1,298.
Interestingly, in that same document, go look at Table 28. It gives a breakout of the main fighter versus the Japanese by individual aircraft type.
For instance, the Hellcat against the A6M Zeke / Hamp shot down 1,000 and lost 75 (ratio is 13.3 : 1). The F4U/FG Corsair against the same opponent is 327 kills versus 27 losses (ratio is 8.8 : 1). It is broken out by a lot of aircraft (though they DO group the SB2C and TBM together). Overall, the Hellcat against the Japanese shot down 3,518 against 160 losses to enemy aircraft (ratio is 22 : 1) while the Corsair killed 1,042 against 49 losses (ratio is 21.3 : 1). So, overall, they are just about even in combat versus Japanese aircraft.
Again overall, the Hellcat had 2,461 total losses (combat and non-combat) in 66,530 sorties while the Corsair had 1,624 losses in 64,051 sorties. Hellcat loss per sortie is 1.75% and Corsair loss per sorties is 1.2% if all losses are looked at. To me, it says a LOT more about what the individual aircraft assignment were than about anything else. Any way you cut it, their overall loss ratio is very close to even and the overall enemy aircraft combat kill ratio favors the Hellcat by about 50% (19 : 1 versus 11 : 1). I put that down to opportunity. It looks to me like the main combats were fought mostly with Hellcat and the Marines flew the Corsairs in mostly mop-up assignments after the main combat assault was done, and the Marines DID get main assault assignments, but there was a lot of ground attack against enemy troops in there that Hellcats saw a lot less of.
Not really making a statement as much as calling attention to Table 28. Table 29 shows the F4U was used something like 25 times more against targets than for combat CAP, so it WOULD get less chances against enemy planes.
These tables and more are worth looking at and should generate a LOT of discussion. What do you guys think?
Last edited:
